Helen Jaques: NHS pensions: the saga continues

December 21, 2011

One story has dominated my first year as news reporter for BMJ Careers: pensions. And what a compelling story it has been.

The issue kicked off way back in March this year when Lord Hutton set out a raft of changes to public sector pensions, which included ending final salary schemes in favour of career average schemes, increasing the normal retirement age in line with stage pension age (due to creep up to 68 in the next 35 years), and increasing the amount employees pay into their pensions. Come summer the government gave the green light to Lord Hutton’s proposals and set out the details of the contribution increases for 2012-13. It has however remained tight lipped on increases planned for 2013-14 and 2014-15, which could bring the total increase in contributions up to 3.2 percentage points for high earners such as doctors. These suggestions were met with fury from the BMA, which said that doctors were being asked to pay more and work longer for a worse pension. It has also pointed out that the NHS scheme has already undergone an overhaul in 2008 and is filling the treasury’s coffers to the tune of £10.7 billion over the next five years rather than depleting stocks.

The proposal that employees within ten years of retirement should be exempt from changes to public sector pensions, and the decision to negotiate the various public sector schemes separately, represent very shrewd decisions on the part of the government. The first should in theory wipe out the threat of hordes of senior doctors retiring on the spot to avoid these detrimental changes to their pensions, although so far this plan hasn’t entirely worked. The second sets out something of a “divide and conquer” approach by the government, as undoubtedly some sectors will agree with the pension changes and those dragging their heels will be looked upon less favourably by the public.

All this has been against a background of other sneaky changes to public sector pensions that have attracted fewer headlines, such as the switch in indexation of pension pay outs after retirement from the retail prices index (RPI) to the typically lower consumer prices index (CPI) and a change in the amount that can be deposited in a pension scheme without paying tax (the annual allowance).

Now the story has reached something of a climax, with the government throwing down its final offer on pensions, which includes most of the elements listed above as well as an improved accrual rate of 1/54th and protection of NHS pension scheme benefits should a healthcare worker leave the public sector. Healthcare unions such as Unison and the Royal College of Nursing have heralded the concessions they’ve achieved so far – in particular the protection for low earners – and said that the offer is the best they could hope for. The BMA essentially agrees, but has been at pains to emphasise that the proposals “will still hit doctors very hard.”

These next few months are where things stand to get really interesting. Healthcare unions will put the new deal to their members in January, and my bet is that members of big players such as Unison and the RCN will accept the offer, albeit narrowly. The BMA has similarly committed to consulting its members on the pensions proposals, and should doctors vote against the new offer the union has said it will call a ballot on some form of action to defend pension benefits, industrial action included.

I think it’s fair to say that doctors hate the pension proposals, not least because despite the 10 months of haggling they’re still pretty much stuck with Hutton’s original proposals – some doctors will benefit from plans to protect individuals within 10 years of retirement but few, if any, will benefit from the protection for people earning less than £26,557, and nearly all will face a bigger increase in contributions as a result of this concession.

This could leave us in the interesting position where BMA members reject the government’s offer and other healthcare unions accept it. The BMA would then be obliged to ballot on industrial action and could, in the most extreme situation, end up striking on its own without the support of other healthcare unions (although it’s very hard to predict whether doctors will actually vote for industrial action when it comes down to it). This would undoubtedly be a PR disaster for the BMA and the whole profession.

It seems like pensions will be a big story for my second year of reporting too.

Post navigation

My concern is that the Government looks set to plunder for the second time our hard-earned pension which in effect is part of our pay and conditions. They are pocketing over £200,000 each of our money with, as I understand, no immediate justification in terms of funding of the pension fund. It is difficult to know how far you would have to push doctors before they would strike. But if the profession never draws a line then the government will continue to return to us for “money saving” or “income generation”.

Comment and opinion from The BMJ's international community of readers, authors, and editors

Information for Authors

BMJ Opinion provides comment and opinion written by The BMJ's international community of readers, authors, and editors.

We welcome submissions for consideration. Your article should be clear, compelling, and appeal to our international readership of doctors and other health professionals. The best pieces make a single topical point. They are well argued with new insights.